docs: document sprint-1 hardening and container observability

[cluster2600]

Summary

Document Sprint-1 hardening changes and container observability operations so the recent security/default changes are explicit for operators.

What was added

• New runbook: docs/ops/2026-02-18_container_observability_runbook.md
  • Post-hardening env requirements
  • Container startup and endpoint verification
  • Prometheus target validation
  • Grafana "No data" troubleshooting
  • Repository hygiene policy for local environments/artifacts
• Updated README.md
  • Added 2026-02-18 hardening notes section
  • Linked to runbook + SECURITY.md
  • Updated Docker quick-start endpoint note (API health + Grafana)
• Updated SECURITY.md
  • Added Sprint-1 hardening details and operational implications
  • Updated security review dates
• Updated docs/README.md
  • Added operations runbooks section

Why

The behavior changes from issues #9, #10, #11, #13, #16 affect runtime defaults and monitoring access patterns. This PR makes those changes discoverable and actionable.

[claude]

Claude finished @cluster2600's task —— View job

---

📋 PR Review: Sprint-1 Hardening and Container Observability Documentation

This PR effectively documents the Sprint-1 hardening changes, providing clear operational guidance for the security and runtime behavior changes introduced in issues #9, #10, #11, #13, and #16.

✅ Strengths

Comprehensive Security Documentation

• The SECURITY.md updates clearly articulate the hardening changes with specific technical details
• Excellent coverage of operational implications (lines 20-24 in SECURITY.md)
• Clear before/after behavior explanation for each security change

Excellent Operational Runbook

• The new container observability runbook is thorough and actionable
• Provides concrete troubleshooting steps with curl commands and expected outputs
• Well-structured progression from verification to troubleshooting

README.md Integration

• Good placement of hardening notes section (lines 34-48) with cross-references
• Clear linking between documentation files
• Updated Docker quick-start reflects new endpoints

📝 Documentation Quality Assessment

Structure and Organization: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

• Logical flow from overview to specific implementation details
• Good use of headers, code blocks, and formatting
• Cross-references between documents work well

Completeness: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

• Covers all aspects of the hardening changes
• Includes both "what changed" and "how to operate" perspectives
• Emergency procedures and troubleshooting scenarios addressed

Clarity: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

• Technical accuracy is high with specific environment variables and values
• Commands are copy-pasteable with proper formatting
• Clear distinction between development and production setups

🔍 Technical Review

Security Best Practices: ✅ Excellent

• Proper documentation of zero-hardcoded-secrets approach
• Clear explanation of multi-layer fallback security
• Good coverage of authentication changes (X-API-Key requirement)

Operational Accuracy: ✅ Very Good

• Commands and endpoints appear correct
• Docker compose references align with typical container deployments
• Prometheus/Grafana integration steps are sound

🚨 Minor Areas for Enhancement

Container Observability Runbook (docs/ops/2026-02-18_container_observability_runbook.md):

1. Line 46: Consider adding the expected HTTP status code (200) for the health endpoint
2. Lines 98-108: The Prometheus configuration example could benefit from a note about where to place this YAML snippet
3. Line 117: Consider adding a note about the security implications of binding to 0.0.0.0

SECURITY.md:

1. Line 22: Consider adding a brief explanation of what "API key authentication" means in this context
2. Lines 218-220: The security review dates are well-structured, but consider adding the review scope/criteria

🎯 Recommendations

1. Consider adding a quick validation checklist in the runbook for operators to verify their post-hardening setup is working correctly

2. The repository hygiene policy section (lines 119-131 in runbook) is valuable but could include a .gitignore verification step

3. Cross-reference completeness: All document links appear functional and appropriately placed

📊 Overall Assessment

Documentation Quality: A+
Security Awareness: A+
Operational Utility: A+
Technical Accuracy: A+

This is exemplary documentation work that transforms potentially disruptive security changes into well-documented, operationally manageable updates. The documentation serves both immediate operational needs and long-term reference purposes effectively.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve - This PR significantly improves the project's operational documentation and security posture clarity.

---